Search country

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that resolution yields canonical names plus ISO3 codes, but says nothing about matching behavior (fuzzy vs exact), multiple-match/disambiguation handling, or ranking — useful context that would lower ambiguity for a resolver tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, zero waste. The resolution behavior is front-loaded and the usage cue follows immediately.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and all three parameters plus annotations are documented. The one gap is disambiguation behavior when a query matches several countries, which an agent calling a resolver would benefit from knowing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, documenting query, limit (max 20, default 5), and locale (en/ar with RTL note), so the baseline is 3. The description's examples ("egypt", "DRC", "syria") loosely illustrate that query accepts fragments and abbreviations, but add no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (resolve) and resource (free-text country query) and names the output form — canonical names and ISO3 codes — with three concrete query examples. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from country-consuming siblings like country_profile or compare_countries, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"Use this first when unsure how a country is spelled in the data" gives a clear triggering condition and positions the tool as a pre-step. It names no alternatives or when-not conditions (e.g., when an ISO3 is already known), so it stops short of explicit routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.